Comment on Wikipedia Says AI Is Causing a Dangerous Decline in Human Visitors
chunes@lemmy.world 3 days ago
There’s a certain irony in a website that caused a decline in visitors to primary sources complaining about something new causing a decline in visitors to its tertiary sources
wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days ago
I mean, there’s levels to this. If I’m looking for information, having a summary rather than a highly technical primary source can be very useful. Wikipedia cites its sources, and (ideally) has summaries made by groups of people familiar with the subject and following consistent and detailed publicly available style guides. Wikipedia isn’t running ads, and is not for profit.
When an AI summarizes these primary sources, or even summarizes Wikipedia, you get none of that. AI does not reliably cite sources (ones not made for it will just generate a convincing looking response, making up sources whole cloth. Ones made to cite sources will often not actually cite the ones they used, and still can make up sources more rarely). It can’t reliably summarize things accurately, as it doesn’t understand anything, especially not terms that have different meanings depending on the technical context. There’s no group of people reviewing and revising. There’s no incredibly detailed style guide. All these AI are explicitly for profit (the amount of self hosted out there is negligible and those are much less of a problem), and almost every one of the companies running them have openly spoken about future plans to try and seamlessly weave advertisements into them. Most importantly, there’s no guarantee that what it gives you will even be true.